[opendtv] Re: Multicast must-carry

  • From: Tom Barry <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:28:05 -0400

But in this universe for most content cable the companies are a middle man. They receive a positive sum from the customers and also a positive or negative sum from the content providers. This possible double sum doesn't bother me at all. They are just making a market for delivery.


The problem with must-carry is it gives low tier broadcasters a free option to purchase that delivery for zero dollars. This makes an inefficient market since it gives an economic incentive to those companies that wish to provide material worth less than zero dollars to continue using resources to sell things that would otherwise not be produced or delivered.

All of this was originally justified by the idea it would somehow provide some public good. But if it ever goes back to Congress or the Supreme Court I think opponents could pretty much show the history of actual usage of real must-carry channels. A few spreadsheets and powerpoints of what is actually being provided to the public vs the incremental cost in cable carriage would likely kill support of any increase of must-carry.

For that matter, the cable companies could probably kill two birds with one stone by offering to provide an 'a la carte light' package, an optional extremely basic cable carriage that did not include any must-carry stations, at a (extremely) slight discount to the normal lifeline cable package they all must currently offer. Dunno if this would be approved under current regulations but it might make for some great PR and lobbying if the cable companies were to publicly ask to do it.

Let's see how many customers would pay for the optional must-carry tier if they knew which channels were actually in it and how much it cost them. ;-)

- Tom


Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
Craig Birkmaier wrote:


Even if he COULD get two or more of the commissioners to agree to
an order that would authorize multicast must carry, that order
would be reversed by the courts in a heartbeat.


In a parallel universe, where cable systems merely carry what content
ownders pay them to carry, and where content owners get all the ad
revenues, there would be no issue at all.

The entire OTA DTV multiplex, over digital cable, would cost the
broadcaster half as much for cable carriage as the single analog channel
costs for carriage (assuming 256-QAM). The OTA broadcaster would
therefore have a big incentive to quit the analog cable carriage.

Same goes for this broadcaster's OTA plant. He can transmit the entire
multiplex using less power than the single analog channel. Great
incentive to quit broadcasting the single analog channel.

Quality tradeoffs are made as such tradeoffs should always be made. If
you start losing customers because your multiplexes are too crowded and
therefore degraded, better reduce the number of streams, save some money
doing so, and improve the quality of the remaining streams. And get more
customers now that your quality is better.

That's the way things should be.

Bert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 
unsubscribe in the subject line.



--
Tom Barry                  trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx  



----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 
unsubscribe in the subject line.

Other related posts: